On Aug 22, 2007, at 9:07 AM, Chris Lilley wrote:
>
> Hello public-forms-tf,
>
> Now that both HTML and Forms WGs have nominated their task force
> representatives, the next thing is to get a charter together.
>
> There are useful bits of wording in the Forms and the HTML WG
> charters:
> http://www.w3.org/2007/03/HTML-WG-charter
> http://www.w3.org/2007/03/forms-charter
>
> the directors decision had an 'architectural vision' document and a
> 'process comments' document, both have useful text and guidance:
> http://www.w3.org/2007/03/vision
> http://www.w3.org/2007/03/html-forms-process-public
>
>
> and Dan Connolly made a selection of useful wording from these in an
> archived email message:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2007May/0015.html
Side note: One of Dan's quote was of an early internal version of the
architectural vision document. He quoted it as:
"The charter calls for two equivalent serializations to be developed,
corresponding to a single DOM (or infoset, though tag soup cannot be
considered to have an infoset currently, while it can have a DOM).
This ensures that decisions are not made which would not preclude an
XML serialization. It allows the two serializations to be inter-
converted automatically. Having new language features, there is an
incentive for content authors to use it; and having client-side
implementations means that there is the possibility to really use it."
However, the version of the vision document published actually says:
"Instead, the charter calls for two equivalent serializations to be
developed *by the HTML WG* [emphasis mine], corresponding to a single
DOM (or infoset, though tag soup cannot be considered to have an
infoset currently, while it can have a DOM). This ensures that
decisions are not made which would preclude an XML serialization. It
allows the two serializations to be inter-converted automatically.
Having new language features, there is an incentive for content
authors to use it; and having client-side implementations means that
there is the possibility to really use it."
The quote from the official version appears not to be about this task
force at all, but about the HTML language spec deliverable of the HTML
WG.
I mention this so we don't accidentally draw on the misquoted version
of the statement.
Regards,
Maciej